Ocean acidification could affect rising temperatures

New research shows the two aren’t entirely separate.

Climate change’s oft ignored twin, ocean acidification, is usually thought of as a biological rather than a climatic problem. They’re seen as parallel (carbon dioxide emissions are a cause of each) but separate (the effects of ocean acidification don’t depend on changes in climate). Some recent studies are showing that, true to the interconnected nature of, well, nature, ocean acidification may actually have a climatic effect of its own.

Ocean acidification is a decrease in the pH and carbonate concentration of ocean water caused by CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. It’s generally bad news for critters with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, and acidification has even been shown to affect fish. Studies in which CO2 is added to closely monitored sections of marine habitat have shown that one of the many outcomes appears to be a decrease in dimethylsulfide produced by phytoplankton.

This turns out to be pretty interesting, because this is the biggest source of biologically created sulfur that makes its way into the atmosphere, where sulfur compounds are hugely important for the formation of clouds. (They help create the cloud condensation nuclei that cloud droplets grow around.) Since cloud cover affects the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, this has the potential to affect climate.

But are we talking about a negligible impact or a significant one? A group of researchers set out to explore this question using a climate model developed by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. The models simulated the effect of an acidification-induced decline in sulfur production on clouds.

But the magnitude of that sulfur decline is highly uncertain. The handful of existing studies came up with different estimates of how much sulfur production drops as pH goes down. Rather than guess which estimate came closest to the truth, the researchers ran their simulations with high, medium, and low estimates.

One simulation left the link between acidification and sulfur out completely, providing a baseline for a comparison of warming by the end of the century with a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario. Then the model was run with the three estimates of acidification’s effect on sulfur.

In the baseline model, the flow of biologically created sulfur from the ocean to the atmosphere still decreased by seven percent because of climate change. Warming the surface ocean cuts down on mixing with deeper, nutrient-rich water, so phytoplankton productivity drops.

But in the simulations that included the impact of acidification, that sulfur contribution to the atmosphere decreased by 12 to 24 percent. The effect this has on cloud formation in the model is measured in terms of the additional energy from the Sun reaching the Earth’s surface—0.08 Watts per square meter due to warming the waters the phytoplankton live in and 0.18 to 0.64 Watts per square meter due to acidification. Allowing for uncertainty in exactly how sensitive the climate is to change, that equates to 0.1 to 0.76 °C of additional warming caused by ocean acidification at the end of the century. Keeping in mind that this emissions scenario projects around 2.8 °C of warming by 2100, that could potentially be a significant addition.

While climate change and ocean acidification are parallel phenomena, there are also some cross-links enabling the twins to interact. Rising temperatures and changing seawater chemistry will have impacts on marine life, and some of those impacts could, in turn, affect rising temperatures. That’s why it’s called the climate system—when you tug on one thing, many things move.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

If you look at the "official" definition of a theorem, much less a theory or hypothesis, you will find it still includes a small possibility of being wrong. In short, I don't know if there actually is a definition in science for being 100% certain on something.

If you looks at the earth just like you look at your body it is easy to figure out everything you do to it has an effect and that effects on one part of it sometimes if not always affects other parts in ways that are not always easy to spot/predict. With the planet it just happens in a scale orders of magnitude more complex making it harder to comprehend.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

If you look at the "official" definition of a theorem, much less a theory or hypothesis, you will find it still includes a small possibility of being wrong. In short, I don't know if there actually is a definition in science for being 100% certain on something.

Not even Laws.

A law is a definition of an observed phenomena. In physics, this is usually a mathematical equation that models some observed behaviour. These don't provide an explanation for why something works the way it does.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for the way a law or collection of laws work. These will usually have predicitons that are not covered by the knowledge of the thing the hypothesis is for. Experiments are run and checked against the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is peer reviewed. If the hypothesis passes all of this, it becomes a theory.

A theory is an explanation of how something works that is accurate to the best of our knowlege. A theory can be incomplete, or only valid within certain parameters. That does not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong, just that we don't have the entire picture yet.

The Gallilean and Newtonian Laws of motion describe how objects move when forces are applied and how they orbit each other. These form the classical mechanics theory. Classical mechanics is enough to determine accurately when solar and lunar eclipses occur and the movement of the planets (so determine the trajectory for the Voyager and Cassini probes we have sent to the outer planets).

What Classical Mechanics cannot calculate is the orbit of Mercury. This is because it is close enough to the sun that its orbit is being changed by the space-time curvature of the sun. Here you need the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity. These predicted black holes before their discovery, the curvature of light around a planet, and more that have been proven time and again. Also, at non-relativistic speeds, Special Relativity simplifies to the classical mechanics formulation.

The Quantum Mechanics theory has been proven time and again through experiments.

NOTE: Although String Theory has the word "Theory" in it, it is actually a hypothesis as there hasn't yet been significant evidence to prove or disprove it.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

If you look at the "official" definition of a theorem, much less a theory or hypothesis, you will find it still includes a small possibility of being wrong. In short, I don't know if there actually is a definition in science for being 100% certain on something.

Not even Laws.

Since when does 'show' imply 100% proven certainty anyways?

If I 'show' you an apple, I guess there is a small but finite chance that it's actually a pear shaped and colored to look like an apple, but that doesn't mean you have to 'preemptively' edit the description to say that I 'apparently produced an item that appears to look like what I supposedly have been taught an apple looks like...assuming I'm not a brain in a jar'.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

If you look at the "official" definition of a theorem, much less a theory or hypothesis, you will find it still includes a small possibility of being wrong. In short, I don't know if there actually is a definition in science for being 100% certain on something.

Not even Laws.

Since when does 'show' imply 100% proven certainty anyways?

If I 'show' you an apple, I guess there is a small but finite chance that it's actually a pear shaped and colored to look like an apple, but that doesn't mean you have to 'preemptively' edit the description to say that I 'apparently produced an item that appears to look like what I supposedly have been taught an apple looks like...assuming I'm not a brain in a jar'.

The word 'show' is just fine.

I was going to say something similar. I take "show" and "demonstrate" as meaning that evidence has been provided that supports the hypothesis. "Prove" on the other hand requires a higher standard.

I don't agree with the claim that science can not prove anything. Some things can be proven, some cannot. For example, it's difficult at best to "prove" a species is extinct. You just provide enough strong evidence that it's a usable working assumption. However, it's not nearly so hard to prove a species is not extinct.

Color me cynical, but does it matter at this point? Money is what rules this world. So long as combating climate change is seen anti-business nothing substantive will be done about it.

This. The bus has all ready gone off the cliff and we are in free fall now. I personally doubt any of the efforts we put forth would make a real change to counter act the negative effects of climate change. Efforts such as these should have started 50 or more years ago imho.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

Mathematics is not science. It's kind of like science, and sometimes science relies heavily on math, but it does not employ the scientific method. A theorem is deductive. Given true premises and valid logic, its conclusion is necessarily true. It will be true forever, regardless of subsequent discoveries.

A scientific theory is empirical. It relies on observation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning. Its conclusion may have to be revised or rejected if new observations are made, or new experiments contradict previous experiments.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

While I empathize with the plight of tobacco companies and fossil fuel firms whose continued profits rely on sowing and promoting uncertainty in fields where the science is relatively certain, I think you are being a bit pedantic here.

You may want to hop over to the Scientific American website and comment on each story that doesn't explicitly state that it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a PhD in physics is not equal to being a witch. That would be a major public service and everyone should really be fully aware of the facts before they start believing any of that mumbo-jumbo.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

While I empathize with the plight of tobacco companies and fossil fuel firms whose continued profits rely on sowing and promoting uncertainty in fields where the science is relatively certain, I think you are being a bit pedantic here.

You may want to hop over to the Scientific American website and comment on each story that doesn't explicitly state that it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a PhD in physics is not equal to being a witch. That would be a major public service and everyone should really be fully aware of the facts before they start believing any of that mumbo-jumbo.

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

Mathematics is not science. It's kind of like science, and sometimes science relies heavily on math, but it does not employ the scientific method. A theorem is deductive. Given true premises and valid logic, its conclusion is necessarily true. It will be true forever, regardless of subsequent discoveries.

A scientific theory is empirical. It relies on observation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning. Its conclusion may have to be revised or rejected if new observations are made, or new experiments contradict previous experiments.

...and a lot of those "proofs" in physics rely on approximations to simplify the problem. (Usually it's replacing a function with the first two or three terms of the equivalent Taylor series) Those approximations may be valid in the vast majority of experimental conditions, but you always have to ask yourself whether they hold in the specific case you're studying, and whether the assumptions required to make them valid contradict other assumptions you've already made.

Interesting article. I'm sure the comment section will, again, be very entertaining. The level which science has reached in adding variables to climate modeling boggles my poor brain. So less sulfur yields less nucleation. That could yield higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Color me cynical, but does it matter at this point? Money is what rules this world. So long as combating climate change is seen anti-business nothing substantive will be done about it.

Unless the solution creates new businesses providing a value add.

Suppose the C02 linkage survives sufficient scrutiny. It may generate the business need for companies to develop and market processes for adding CO2 to acidified ocean water rather than undergroud sequestration as a restorative measure.

Just like strip-mining drove the business need for companies specialing in the remediation of that land after their ore output dropped below a cost-effective level. Who pays for the remediation is negotiable... the companies fulfilling the work contracts employed people and made money.

Say what you want about whether that's how society should operate (exploit first, fix later), but it is a model that occurs with money-making acting as an integral force.

Interesting article. I'm sure the comment section will, again, be very entertaining. The level which science has reached in adding variables to climate modeling boggles my poor brain. So less sulfur yields less nucleation. That could yield higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Colour me cynical, but it really doesn't sound like these studies are anywhere near comprehensive or conclusive enough to draw much in the way of conclusions from. They are interesting, yes, and probably provide useful data, but to jump to the conclusion that ocean acidification adds to or multiplies global warming is very speculative, at best, right now. The article clearly tries to point in that direction, even if it doesn't state it outright, and a lot of people are going to jump to that conclusion.

Quoting the abstract of the study: "Our results indicate that ocean acidification has the potential to exacerbate anthropogenic warming through a mechanism that is not considered at present in projections of future climate change."

That's the conclusion -- that the mechanism is worth further study to see how strong the effect is. An alternative conclusion would have been that it does not appear to make enough of a difference and could safely be ignored...

Well, another reinforcing feedback loop, and one that was suspected for a long time.

Anyhow, while there is a vanishing probality that climate models are false and there is no warming, the costs of doing nothing are so huge that not acting now (or rather 10 years ago) is beyond stupid.

We are facing an increasing risk of passing a threshold we wont be able to recover from, and so far we reached the intermediate steps much faster than even the most pessimistics projections said.

Interesting article. I'm sure the comment section will, again, be very entertaining. The level which science has reached in adding variables to climate modeling boggles my poor brain. So less sulfur yields less nucleation. That could yield higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Interesting article. I'm sure the comment section will, again, be very entertaining. The level which science has reached in adding variables to climate modeling boggles my poor brain. So less sulfur yields less nucleation. That could yield higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Yes, but the point is that with less dimethylsulfide in the atmosphere, there will be less cloud nucleation, therefore less clouds, and more of the water content will remain as vapor (greenhouse gas) and not as clouds (which have their own climate impacts). A complex enough situation that you really need to model it explicitly.

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

Preemptive EditI'm not arguing with the article. I haven't even read it. I am simply reminding everyone that science can not prove anything; it can only disprove hypotheses.

Then how is it that proving theorems in maths and physics is one of the way to learn and understand those sciences then?

Mathematics is not science. It's kind of like science, and sometimes science relies heavily on math, but it does not employ the scientific method. A theorem is deductive. Given true premises and valid logic, its conclusion is necessarily true. It will be true forever, regardless of subsequent discoveries.

A scientific theory is empirical. It relies on observation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning. Its conclusion may have to be revised or rejected if new observations are made, or new experiments contradict previous experiments.

...and a lot of those "proofs" in physics rely on approximations to simplify the problem. (Usually it's replacing a function with the first two or three terms of the equivalent Taylor series) Those approximations may be valid in the vast majority of experimental conditions, but you always have to ask yourself whether they hold in the specific case you're studying, and whether the assumptions required to make them valid contradict other assumptions you've already made.

Approximations based on series expansions generally come with an explicit bounded 'error term', which is provably larger than the sum of all of the omitted terms of the series. A solid proof using such an approximation shows that the result holds regardless of what value the error term takes within its allowed range. Similar practices apply to many others sorts of approximations as well - show that the error introduced is small (by some particular definition), and then show that any error below that magnitude makes no qualitative difference. Experimental conditions have nothing to do with it.

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

If the thermometer isn't giving you what you want, you have to go looking elsewhere. Are you old enough to remember acid rain in the late 70s? It was quite the rage...

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

If the thermometer isn't giving you what you want, you have to go looking elsewhere. Are you old enough to remember acid rain in the late 70s? It was quite the rage...

Acid rain was in fact a problem. You can observe many architectural and artistic structures that decayed due to it. Unlike anthropogenic climate change, the world successfully stopped acid rain. We collectively agreed to arrest sulfur dioxide emissions, and the source of acid in clouds went away.

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

If the thermometer isn't giving you what you want, you have to go looking elsewhere. Are you old enough to remember acid rain in the late 70s? It was quite the rage...

Acid rain was in fact a problem. You can observe many architectural and artistic structures that decayed due to it. Unlike anthropogenic climate change, the world successfully stopped acid rain. We collectively agreed to arrest sulfur dioxide emissions, and the source of acid in clouds went away.

And based on this study, it sounds like we will improve things even further by reducing the amount sulfur going into the atmosphere.

Sulfur dioxide != dimethyl sulfide. The former's chemistry allows the formation of sulfuric acid, the latter's does not. The article here is about flows of the latter. Not all sulfur compounds are equivalent. Quit being obtuse.

Sulfur dioxide != dimethyl sulfide. The former's chemistry allows the formation of sulfuric acid, the latter's does not. The article here is about flows of the latter. Not all sulfur compounds are equivalent. Quit being obtuse.

There is far more hydroxic acid in "acid rain" than there is sulfuric acid.

Interesting article. I'm sure the comment section will, again, be very entertaining. The level which science has reached in adding variables to climate modeling boggles my poor brain. So less sulfur yields less nucleation. That could yield higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

Its a directional term. If your pH is decreasing, you are acidifying. The term 'neutralization' would imply that the change would reverse direction below pH 7, which it would not. It has nothing to do with sounding scary.

Assuming that further research points to the conclusions of this paper being correct, is this something that would be relatively simple to counteract by deliberately releasing an appropriate amount of the appropriate sulfer compounds?

(And yes, I know that counteracting a problem is not the same as solving it or removing the cause(s) of the problem. But since climate change is a long-term issue and we can't go back in time to undo what we believe to be the causes, counteraction and mitigation would still seem to be worthwhile topics.)

where did this definition of 'acidification' come from? it was beat into my head in junior high that nothing is an acidic until its pH is <7. if an alkaline substance drops in pH it is still a base until it hits 7, at which point it would be 'neutral'. i guess saying that there are areas where sea water is 'less alkaline/less basic' isnt as scary sounding as saying that the ocean is 'acidifying?' Even 'ocean neutralization' would make more sense...

Its a directional term. If your pH is decreasing, you are acidifying. The term 'neutralization' would imply that the change would reverse direction below pH 7, which it would not. It has nothing to do with sounding scary.

This is correct. It's a perfectly appropriate word to describe the process of becoming more acidic; it does not require nor imply crossing the threshold of pH < 7. In fact, it's more accurate than "neutralization," because "neutralization" would imply a directed process that stopped once pH reached 7.00, which is clearly nonsensical in this context.